|
Poster:
|
 Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
April 19, 2009 08:47:59pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
These ones are Public Domain:
Curse Of The Swamp Creature
The Manster
Night Fright
These ones aren't:
Creature of the Walking Dead (Renewed 1992 Medalion TV)
Satanik (GATT/URAA registration 1997 by SGAE)
Face Of Terror (All music was copyright renewed. Movie was GATT/URAA restored)
It depends on which movie it is for this one:
The Invisible Terror.
1. 1964 German movie about a scientist who creates an invisibility formula was GATT/URAA reg'd by Exportfilm Bischoff & Company
2. 1965 US film AKA The Beach Girls and the Monster. Never reg'd or renewed so PD.
|
Poster:
|
guyzilla |
Date:
|
April 19, 2009 09:15:02pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Thanks, VC. I I might just put up "Beach Girls and the Monser" (aka "Monster From the Surf") at some point. But isn't it owned by Wade Williams?
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
April 19, 2009 10:00:32pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
I don't have an original print, but it was supposedly released without a correct copyright notice. Wade Williams III seems to be the only current distributor. However, most of his stuff is "Bad" copyrights, disputed owenership and Public Domain content. But he happily sends C&D orders to his competitors for Public Domain content that he happens to also distribute. So it might be safest to stay away from uploading that one.
|
Poster:
|
cosmicola |
Date:
|
April 19, 2009 10:57:11pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
WW is pretty well known for "hijacking" PD films and calling them his own, isn't he?
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 12:45:33am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
He does that often. He also makes alot of mistakes in registering and renewing copyright. Like "Cat Women From the Moon" he registered and renewed the movie in the 29th year after its original copyright date. Waste of time.
He thinks he owns Rocketship X-M (PD in it's original version), Invaders From Mars (legally owned by Richard L. Rosenfeld & MPH), the TV series "Tales of Tomorrow" (never in copyright), And Then There Were None (1945, PD), DOA (PD), Plan Nine (PD), Jail Bait (never copyright), and so many more.
Looking at some of the things he has filled with the copyright office, it seems he thinks if you pay the estate of the director or producer and make a license agreement on a Public Domain movie you get exclusive rights.
The great thing is that he is constantly getting ripped off by the estates of some B-Grade producers/directors who market their "'copyright' catalogues" to him. The Popkin's sold him 12 of Harry and Leo's movies (only 2 had a valid copyrights). Kathy Wood sold him the rights to all of Ed Wood's films in the 80s. Only the then unreleased film "Night of the Ghouls" had any vaild claim to copyright. And he almost went to jail for selling stolen footage of Elvis Presley's final concert on EBAY.
|
Poster:
|
k-otic |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 02:09:30am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Plan Nine (PD) ?!?
are you talking about
Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 02:15:06am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Yes. It was registered (film, screenplay and trailer, in 1981). Williams later attempted to secure renewal which were filed but do not correspond to the original registrations and are legally invalid.
|
Poster:
|
cosmicola |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 02:31:48am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
I guess he challenged IA, and that's why Plan 9 was pulled some time ago? There are a few PD movies I've seen here in the past which later disappeared from the Archive. Most seemed to have some connection to WW.
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 02:38:48am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
I think IA just does not question a takedown notice. If they receive one they take the film down. Williams' people are well known for sending erroneous cease and desist orders.
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
January 02, 2010 03:25:26pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
I'm planning to upload
Plan 9 from Outer Space. I'd appreciate it if you would say how the copyright renewal does not correspond to the original registration so I can include this information when I post the movie, something like what you did with
Cat-Women of the Moon. Don't know if it will make a difference if (when) IA gets a takedown notice, but I think it's worth a shot. Yes, I like to run the fool's errand occasionally.
I'd post
Jail Bait too, but I can't find my copy.
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
January 03, 2010 11:36:16pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
I think this pretty much sums up the situation for "Plan 9"
This film is in the public domain. “Grave Robbers From Outer Space” was originally published in the USA in 1959. The film was not immediately registered for copyright. It was registered by it's producer “Reynold's Pictures Inc” in 1981 (PA0000102338).
The film's copyright was renewed in 1986 by Wade Williams 3 (RE0000279707). In 1981, Williams lodged a quitclaim from Kathy Wood (Edward D Wood Jr's second wife [1956-his death] and heir. USCO doc. no. V1831P045) and separate quitclaims of interest from Norma McCarty (Edward D Wood's first wife - falsely listed on the filing as “Mrs. Edward D. Wood, Jr., successor of all rights to the Estate of Edward D. Wood, Jr.”, which she was not, as their marriage had been annulled) - and Reynolds Pictures, Inc.
This renewal was legally invalid for these reasons:
1)the registration and renewals were lodged providing the incorrect title on screen, date-in-notice and publication date for the original publication.
2)In order for a successor in interest to renew a copyright they have to demonstrate that they own the copyright through a valid transfer of rights from the party owning the copyright at or immediately before the renewal window. None of the parties Mr Williams sought quitclaims from were valid owners of copyright immediately prior to the renewal window. Valid copyright successors for this film “James Flocker Enterprises Inc” “Gold Key Video” Vidtronics Inc” and “Medallion Pictures”, all companies who are successors in the chain of ownership post registration, are not present in Williams' quitclaims. Williams has, instead, provided the the USCO with a series of meaningless assignments from parties which no longer held any copyright interest in the work in order to demonstrate “ownership” of the intellectual property in the film.
The screenplay was further registered as an unpublished work in 1989 (Pau001211635). This again is rendered legally invalid by the mere fact that large portions of the screenplay were previously published as part of the registered motion picture for which no valid copyright renewal exists.
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
January 04, 2010 04:55:38am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Thanks so much Shane! I'll quote and link to this post when I upload the movie. Hope it helps keep the film here.
Bill
|
Poster:
|
Fact_Checker |
Date:
|
May 04, 2011 06:21:00pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME (Plan 9 From Outer Space copyright) |
I have no argument with point #1 and that copyright registration of the screenplay does not mean anything because "large portions of the screenplay were previously published as part of the registered motion picture" (thus making copyright protection contingent upon copyright in the film itself).
However, it may be incorrect to decide that the renewal claimant lacked eligibility because "Valid copyright successors for this film 'James Flocker Enterprises Inc' 'Gold Key Video' 'Vidtronics Inc' and 'Medallion Pictures', all companies who are successors in the chain of ownership post registration, are not present in Williams' quitclaims."
The above companies may well have acquired the remainder of the first-term rights that began with J. Edward Reynolds, but Reynolds's rights may have not extended into the second term. "Plan 9" is in an unusual ownership situation because the project originated with Edward D. Wood Jr. independent of any company or financier, and only later did Reynolds come into the picture, seemingly as a backer rather than as someone to whom Wood had a work-for-hire arrangement. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, this would give Wood ownership of copyright after the first term, and owing to Wood's death prior to the end of the first term, any contractual term he signed forfeiting the second term would be void.
There are precedents supporting this interpretation. Were it the case that D.W. Griffith's part in spearheading "The Birth of a Nation" were such that he would own the second-term copyright, then it would be necessary that he had renewed the 1915 copyright in 1942-43. Instead, the distributor (which had not even been in existence at the time of production) renewed. A court determined that Epoch (the company) could not show it had been eligible to renew, so the renewal copyright was voided.
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c07B.html#s142The "Plan 9" renewal seems to be the reverse: the successor to the "auteur" (as it were) filed renewal, the distributors did not. I don't know whether Wade Williams has valid claims in this regard, nor do I know what contractual and financial arrangements were made between Wood and Reynolds (Could it have been work for hire? Did Reynolds qualify to be copyright claimant for all terms?), but I see there being grounds for interpreting the copyright status of this film in the way that I describe above.
The provisions of the 1909 Copyright Act which gave authors a "second chance" to sell rights when something they created still had a market 28 years after first publication -- which came about because Congress heeded Mark Twain's testimony about how he had earned little from "Innocents Abroad" in its first term -- usually impacted only songs and novels, not movies, but "Plan 9" was not a studio in-house movie. More cases:
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c07B.html
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
May 07, 2011 02:43:43am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME (Plan 9 From Outer Space copyright) |
The registration listed the authorship as "Reynold Pictures Inc., employer for hire". The work was registered as a work for hire.
|
Poster:
|
mrmccarty |
Date:
|
November 16, 2012 08:05:04pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
My mother is Norma E. McCarty. She and my step-father, Ed, were married until the day he died, no annulment.
I don't know who told you they had an annulment, but I'm very sure whoever it was, didn't have any proof of an annulment, because there isn't any. However, you can get a copy of their Marriage Certificate.
Please stop saying they had an annulment. They both told me they were never divorced either.
Thank you,
Michael McCarty
|
Poster:
|
Fact_Checker |
Date:
|
May 04, 2011 06:49:58pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME (Edward D. Wood Jr's "Jail Bait") |
billbarstad wrote:
"I'd post Jail Bait too, but I can't find my copy."
Careful: the version of "Jail Bait" with the blackface skit is the film as released in 1952, which entered the public domain. There is a "director's cut" version put out in the 1990s that restored the sexy burlesque number which the original distributor cut out (leading said distributor to install the blackface skit so that there would be something would on stage during the theater scene). The restored footage is eligible for copyright protection because this scene was never published until recently, and thereby qualifies for our current relaxed copyright policies, which are not so stringent about registration and copyright notices, let alone renewal.
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 06:05:18am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
So is
Cat-Women of the Moon (1953) as safe to post as
Rocketship X-M (1950)?
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
April 23, 2009 04:23:11pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
His registration for
Cat-Women of the Moon is a year late (See picture 1), but the movie is properly registered (See picture 2).
Attachment: Picture_1.jpgAttachment: Picture_2.jpg
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
April 23, 2009 11:41:48pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
I am in the process of getting the movie ready for upload. The 28 years of copyright begins at the date in the film's copyright notice which is "MCMLIII" (1953) in this case. The regisration of copyright was proper and correct, but there needed to be a renewal registration lodged by 31 Dec 1981 for the copyright to continue, hence Williams' ommision of the 1953 "date of creation" and "in Notice" year from the renewal registration. Essentially the renewal registration was lodge 8 months after the film entered the public domain.
If WWC or Corinth Films send a takedown notice, I will consider suing them for copyfraud under the DMCA as my lasting legacy to the public domain.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-04-24 06:41:48
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
April 24, 2009 05:56:46am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
I'm confused. Doesn't Z. M. Productions' registration of 4/23/81 matter? Is it because the registration refers to a videocassette? Anyway, it's great that you're going to post it and defend it, need be!
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
April 24, 2009 06:48:00am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
The ZM productions registration was a delayed initial registration. They didn't register the film in 1953 or 1954. Under the law, when a film was publishished with a valid copyright notice, it did not have to be registered with the copyright office to be protected, except to secure the extended term of copyright. Just having a notice protected the film for 28 years and registration was only necessary if you wanted to pursue copyright violators for damages. So, basically, a film could be registered for copyright any time up until and during the 28th year, but a renewal registration also had to be lodged by the end of the 28th year to secure the copyright for the extended term.
So, its a two step process for films published before 1964 with a notice but without a pre-publication registration. Firstly, there needed to be a registration filed before the end of the 28th year. Secondly, there needed to be a renewal registration filed before the end of the 28th year. ZM fulfilled step 1 but not step 2 and thus the film entered the public domain from 1 January 1982, eight months before Williams renewal lodgement.
Hope this explains it. It is not easy to get your head around the technicalities of registration and renewal.
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
April 24, 2009 07:12:38am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Thanks, it makes more sense now. I'm glad you're on-the-ball about these things, and a friend of the Archive!
|
Poster:
|
abisynthe |
Date:
|
November 06, 2010 03:32:10am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Quote: registration was only necessary if you wanted to pursue copyright violators for damages
That would be actual damages, no statute punitive damages. If I sue you for a kleenex, I will pay the lawyer fees to win one cent.
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
November 06, 2010 04:36:46am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
No, a timely registration was required to pursue statutory damages. It is still a feature of copyright law that in order to pursue federal statutory damages (and costs) a federal copyright registration must be filed. A copyright infringement case cannot be pursued without a registration because it acts as the only prima facie evidence of the copyright.
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2010-11-06 11:36:46
|
Poster:
|
abisynthe |
Date:
|
November 06, 2010 10:34:16am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
For works prior to 1989.
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
November 06, 2010 04:45:32pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
No, registration of US works and Non-Berne foreign works is still currently required to pursue court action in the US. Timely registration (before publication or within three months of publication) is required to access the full range of rights and remedies.
From Copyright Office Circ- 1 Copyright Basics (Revised Aug 2010) -
"Copyright Registration
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.
Among these advantages are the following:
• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within five years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• If registration is made within three months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U. S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/."
The full circular is available
hereThis post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2010-11-06 23:45:32
|
Poster:
|
quigs |
Date:
|
April 23, 2009 05:54:45pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
What a shame, if only to hear Elmer Berstein's score.
|
Poster:
|
cosmicola |
Date:
|
April 23, 2009 06:25:54pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Back in the early 1980s, Varese Sarabande records had announced a planned album release of Elmer Bernstein's scores for CAT-WOMEN OF THE MOON and ROBOT MONSTER. Too bad it never happened!
Speaking of E.B., I knew a producer who made extremely low-budget films, including one that Bernstein scored in the early 50s. It was one of Bernstein's first films. I asked this producer how much he paid for the score, and he said $200. Maybe that gives you an idea how cheap the film itself was.
|
Poster:
|
Hg80 |
Date:
|
April 21, 2009 01:21:29pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Ah, a name from the past...Wade Williams. Wade lives in my city, though I had thought he had sold his million dollar estate and moved to California, and have dealt with him in the past regarding some 35mm theatrical trailers. He and some partners have refurbished at least two old movie theaters and turned them into a revival theater and a fine arts theater. I also discovered that he lays claim to copyrights of a cadre of films [some which are available here] and markets them as the "Wade Williams Collection" under Corinth Film Distributors. I have seen some of the films and technically they look like a first generation negative strike...some have even been supplied with scrolls for the hearing impaired. Wade has a poor reputation in this city and how he secured the rights to say "Plan 9" or "Invaders from Mars" is interesting.
This post was modified by Hg80 on 2009-04-21 20:21:29
|
Poster:
|
Video-Cellar |
Date:
|
April 22, 2009 07:29:03am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Williams generally makes the fundamental mistake that many make about copyright. He equates ownership of copyright with ownership of the physical work. Ownership of copyright, of course, has no impact on the ownership or title to the physical work. Copyright is simply the ownership of the intangible right of copying and distributing a work.
Williams on the whole purchased prints or elements of films and if he made it in time registered the films for renewal asserting to be the successor in ownership to the copyright and not just the successor in ownership to the print/elements involved. Essentially hijacking copyrights.
To me Williams is the Earl Owensby of film archive and preservation, proving that not even all the money in the world can buy talent, quality and class. But I might be being too harsh on Owensby there.
|
Poster:
|
guyzilla |
Date:
|
April 25, 2009 04:24:25pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
They should make a movie about this guy. Call it "The Thing From Uranus"!
|
Poster:
|
cosmicola |
Date:
|
April 22, 2009 08:22:20am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
I've seen what can happen when WW tries to make his "own" films (Attack from Mars). Beyond bad, and not in a fun or arty way at all.
|
Poster:
|
guyzilla |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 12:38:43am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Wade Williams needs to go take a flying leap, the no-talent jackass!
|
Poster:
|
cosmicola |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 02:18:21am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
You asked if we could help by uploading more monster flicks...I've never tried it, and don't know if I have the software needed or the capability to do so.
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 06:31:56am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
You don't necessarily need any special software. There's some info
here.
|
Poster:
|
cosmicola |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 12:16:30pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
For that matter, my sources are the same as everyone's; I don't have anything out of the ordinary or a special collection from which to upload. That said, I might try sometime in the future posting The Beast of Yucca Flats (a 54-minute feature), unless someone beats me to it. It is definitely PD, and was on IA at one time, I believe.
|
Poster:
|
guyzilla |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 12:53:38pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Go for it. Just make sure you edit out any home video company logos and stuff like that. I'm sure ther's a few monsterphiles out there who'd love to see it on IA if it ain't here already.
|
Poster:
|
guyzilla |
Date:
|
April 25, 2009 05:26:04pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
Also, I forgot to say earlier, check and make sure the flick is PD.
|
Poster:
|
cosmicola |
Date:
|
April 20, 2009 05:04:54pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: MORE TO COME |
It may be a while before I can get it done, but will get to work on it.
TVNews
OpenLibrary
